Thursday, 12 April 2012

We played games this evening

The call went out for another games night, and three hardy gamers converged for a Thursday evening's strategy.

At first, it was just Sam and I. We began with a quick non-leaderboard game of Il Ponte Del Diavolo, which was an enjoyable and tense affair of creating islands in each others' way while trying to build bridges between them. Sam won quite comfortably, but I didn't note the scores. 28 to 16? Something like that. Finn the cat sat on a chair and watched us with disdain.

There was then some faffing about while we waited to see if Jonny could get here in time for a full game. As it was, he arrived just in time as Sam and I had set up a two-player game of Alhambra (realising, as we did, that this would put the "third player" Dirk on the leaderboard) but we had barely started. We happily jilted our imaginary friend in favour of Jonny and began again.

Jonny sat down and Sam reminded him of the rules. This turned out to be a mistake as Jonny quickly got back into the swing of things and Sam might have benefitted if Jonny's memory had been more vague. By the end of the second scoring round, only five points separated the three of us and the excitement could be felt in the air. Like electricity. Or a paper aeroplane. Like an electric paper aeroplane.

In the end, my short wall (which I managed to make shorter in the last round) was balanced out by winning several categories. Sam's last minute charge up the score track thanks to his wall was not enough to catch up with Jonny.

Andrew 130
Jonny 119
Sam 117

Then since it was still early, a game of Tsuro was suggested. I started in bullish mood, trying to trap Sam and then, later, I managed to send both of them across the board while I had the other half to myself. In the end, I dispatched Sam and was able to outlast Jonny who found himself tsuro'd into a corner.

1. Andrew
2. Jonny
3. Sam

Not a great evening for Sam, but because he loses those pesky red fives, he moves ahead of Hannah on the Form Table. I make amends for Tuesday's poor showing, and Jonny's two second places make him the new Mr Consistency. Meanwhile, everyone take a screengrab: Adam's last!







Points
Sam3 322414
Hannah1135515
Andrew1 1 365 16
Steve2315516
Jonny 2 25 5519
Joe145 55 20
Anja4255521
Adam255 5 522

Wednesday, 11 April 2012

I like Trucking and I like to Truck

So Paul finally made good on his long awaited promise of bringing his game to table this Tuesday. Previous weeks had been filled with intriguing comments like "Almost there", "Needs a few tweaks" and "I wish I had a colour printer" but now the teasing had stopped and I was presented with Cargo! (Intentional exclamation mark. See it as emphasis rather than surprise..).

So what is Cargo! you all chorus in prefect harmony. Well Cargo! is a game of freight transportation around Britain linking such nebulous hubs as Croydon, Bracknell and Eccles. Paul had cleverly spotted that lorries had been scandalously omitted from the games market and since trains had been done to death (And were quite expensive to buy) it was a natural theme to adopt (Plus Paul has a ton of beautifully crafted mini train containers). The central mechanic of the game is to create routes between the six depots via a route selected from your hand of cards to place next to your haulage companies lorries. The route cards have numbers at the bottom which in combination generate a number to be rolled (On two dice) to enable your cargo to be delivered. The depots hold all of the cargo and essentially you are removing one of a 20 or 40 foot container to be placed on your lorry complete with route to await delivery. When loads are delivered money is paid out for the size and type and where it was delivered.

Each player gets two actions per turn, whether that be buying or selling lorries, creating routes, obtaining cargo, rolling for delivery or replenishing your card hand. There are two scoring paths calculated at the games end. One is money you still have in your bank and the second is for route cards collected and totalled.

It didn't take us long to get into the swing of it and as with all home designed games getting it's first play, there were some rule changes on the fly. The most difficult bit to grasp, for both parties, was that due to limitations of the game components available to Paul, the container specific money colour didn't match the containers. Therefore we were constantly having to refer to the crib sheet for information.

Who is playing Cargo!? It's Paul!

Not that it detracted from a nice flowing game that saw me race up to 4 lorries in my fleet and amass a lovely pile of dosh. However, Paul had been able to make a lot more deliveries in the game in more locations and consequently scored more for his routes. There was a lovely moment when we had to decide who had won a particular route as Paul had one card for it but it was a minus 1, I didn't have any so technically a zero. Did having a minus number beat someone without a card? We decided the route wouldn't be scored as no cards meant no score and the minus cards were meant to be punitive. My money scoring couldn't quite make up the difference so Paul won the first play of his game…..

Paul 69
Chris 64

After the strenuous activity of delivering our loads I suggested we take on another new game, Mammut. After 10 minutes struggling with the rules and repeated glances at the clock it was put away again for another day and the more familiar Dominion was tabled. Even my desperate knocking beer all over the table couldn't prevent Paul from registering a comfy win.

Paul 50-odd
Chris 37

Temple raiders, tin traders and privilege upgraders

Tonight was an auspicious night as the new venue at Adam's place hosted its first ever games night. As me, Sam and Joe all piled into Joe's car, it felt like we were heading off to Stabcon again, except instead of picking Adam up and heading off north for a whole weekend, we were stopping at Adam's for an evening of table top strategies, cute guinea pigs and odd looks from Adam and Hannah's house mate.

Seven eager gamers were in attendance. After we admired the hand-crafted version of Settlers that Adam had made for Hannah's birthday, Anja and Steve arrived. The first game of the evening was Incan Gold: a new game of treasure collection, coupled with an ingeniously simple mechanic of risking your luck, or getting out early and saving what treasure you have. I really enjoyed it and with all seven of us playing there was a lot of scope for bluffing or blundering into one anothers' plans.

Steve 37
Anja 34
Hannah 26
Sam 22
Joe 22
Adam 20
Andrew 17

After this was another enjoyable game: Choose The Game! In this, everyone tries to be more polite than everyone else in insisting they don't mind what they play. Then, in the final round, people write down their top three choices, and the votes are added up, and the seven of us split into two groups.

I was in a group with Adam, Joe and Anja as we played Hansa Teutonica. I was very wary about the threat of Adam rolling us over again, but Joe was confident we knew what to do this time. The others (Sam, Hannah and Steve) played Tinners' Trail and then Tsuro.

Hansa Teutonica began with a rule refresher for Anja and then we were plunged into the game. At first I was sure that Joe was making the same mistake again by not wanting to displace Adam even though if he did, he'd get an extra go. But Joe was not the naive fool of last time and before long he was the first to get five actions, and he made this advantage tell. Interestingly, we proceeded up the scoresheet very slowly this time and the game ended when the supply of bonus markers was exhausted (and so were we). The length of the game surprised Adam, who thought the game would end soon and so never levelled up his actions to the maximum five.

Joe 72
Adam 55
Andrew 51
Anja 45


Meanwhile the scores for Tinners' Trail were

Hannah 127
Sam 98
Steve 88

While their game of Tsuro ended

1. Hannah
2= Steve
2= Sam

An exciting opening to the season, with Hannah already making an early sprint for first place.







Points
Hannah1135515
Steve2315516
Sam2245518
Joe145 55 20
Anja4255521
Adam255 5 522
Andrew365 5524

Monday, 9 April 2012

Welsh Rare Bits

For the first week of the Easter holidays, Charlotte, the girls and I went to Wales with old friends Rachel and Henry and their three daughters. Both R and H are keen gamers, and Charlotte will happily play a game in the evening, so while I was sure that Henry and I would find lots to get stuck into between days on the beach, long walks and cooking, I was interested to see which games would be hits and misses for the four of us.

We took a bevvy of two-player games, including Hansa, Manoeuvre, Commands and Colours: Ancients, and the big daddy, Twilight Struggle. The first game Henry and I broke out on arriving at the cottage near Pembroke was Manoeuvre. It's a game of Napoleonic-era battles, players assuming control of one of eight available armies, ranging from French, English, Ottoman all the way to the United States. Each army has eight units to go on the board, typically 6 infantry and 2 cavalry units, and a dedicated deck of small cards with which to battle and issue orders. The gameplay is simple; discard and draw cards, move one unit, attack with one unit.

A total rout by the French. Marvellous.

The typical attack by a single unit is very unlikely to eliminate its target, merely flip it to its weaker side, and next turn your opponent may well be able to restore it. So you really need to try and plan attacks so that you can add cards from your hand to strengthen the attack, possibly bringing in more units, leaders etc. The game plays in about 40 minutes once you know what you're doing, and is great fun. We tried out a few of the different arrmies - and each has it's innate strengths and weaknesses.

D6s, D8s and cartoon beer. Mmmm . . .

In the evenings, Charlotte and Rachel joined us. For the first couple of nights, the main event was a few rounds of Pickomino, which works brilliantly as a casual game with four - the perfect combination of push-your-luck, nicking each others tiles and not quite knowing who's winning until the final tally. It also allows for a lot of chatting in-between goes, which is certainly a plus as far as Charlotte is concerned.

Grubby dice. Unacceptable.

The first big game we all tried was Manila, which I got in the Euro Maths Trade the week before we went away. Though some of the mechanics (auction, worker-placement, a smattering of share-manipulation) are very familiar, it's nicely different from lots of the other games we play, definitely has its own niche, and plays in under an hour. It's essentially a game where you're playing the odds and betting on which boats will make it ashore and which will end up in the shipyard. It didn't quite catch fire for the four of us - though I can imagine it going down well with the GNN-ers.

We also played London, which is a favourite of Rachel and Henry's - it doesn't quite do it for me, and had a suspicion that it wouldn't be Charlotte's kind of game either, which turned out to be right. It's a game you really need to play a few times to get your head around and develop a strategy - there's simply no way a new player can hope to keep up, which can be dispiriting enough to put you off for good. I had played a couple of times with R & H before, and with Sam, enough to have a grasp of what to do, though that still put me in a distant third place. I can't quite put my finger on why it doesn't grab me; it's something to do with the complexity of the way city-size/boroughs/poverty/money formulae interact - it remains just a little too opaque for me to be enjoyable, though I can imagine getting into it as a 2 player over a few successive nights and finding it satisfying. I think it lacks the elusive 'fun' factor for me.

Another of our 2-player daytime staples was Hansa - a very stripped down Euro about trading in the Hanseatic League (not to be confused with recent GNN newbie Hansa Teutonica). In a way, it's similar to London in that the various components are symbiotically linked: money allows movement and buying of goods; goods allow placement of markets; markets allow conversion of goods into VPs, and get you more money. It's all wrapped up in a very pretty, refined package, and plays in about 20/30 mins. It can be played with four, but loses a lot of the strategy, I've heard.

Hansa by firelight.

As well as London, Henry had brought Ora et Labora with him, the latest big game by Uwe Rosenberg. Having bought it during last half-term, he and Rachel had not got round to playing it, despite a couple of attempts - on opening the box I could see why. If the number and variety of resources and playing boards weren't terrifying enough, the combined rulebooks, covering set-up, general rules, specifics and a multi-page glossary of buildings are positively fearsome. We decided not to attempt this with the women, at least not without a thorough playthrough between the two of us, and so we tackled it on a grey afternoon.
As it turns out, there was little to fear, and lots to enjoy. The rulebooks, if taken in the correct order, have you set up and playing within 20 minutes, and we found we could happily ignore at least half of them.
It is very much in the vein of Agricola, with players building up their monastery in either Ireland or France, felling forests, clearing peat bogs, brewing beer/making wine and gradually amassing victory points. It is apparently closer to Le Havre than Agricola, though graphically it definitely takes its cue from the earlier Rosenberg game. It took us a couple of hours to play, and at the end I was a little bit underwhelmed - it's very wide-open compared to Agricola, and consequently felt a bit flabby. In Agricola, you're operating at the bleeding-edge of subsistence, and every action counts. The world of O & L feels altogether more of a cornucopia, and whilst there are clearly strategic paths aplenty to amassing VPs in bulk, the fact that they are floating around from the very beginning and relatively easy to come by makes it feel less focussed. However, though we didn't manage to get it to the table again during the week, something about it has stayed with me; building your little cloister into a vast, all-encompassing monastery; brewing fine beer and distilling barrels of Irish Whisky, all wrapped-up in the cosy, inviting Agricola-esque hues. I want another go, and if any GNNers have their eye on a new game, I'll happily play it (not buying any more games, see?)

On wednesday evening, the four of us got to Lords of Vegas. I had my concerns, especially since the 'gambling' aspects of Manila had been a bit of a damp squib, and I couldn't remember quite how straightforward the mechanics of LoV were. As it turned out, it was a perfect fit - tense, exciting reversals-of-fortune, enthusiastic dice-rolling and a close finish with Rachel (I think) eeking a win against Henry. Henry particularly took to the risk-reward spirit of it, at one point betting $25 million on a single roll in Rachel's casino in a bid to scupper her plans. He lost.

Lords of Vegas: busy board, busy tablecloth.

We played again on thursday night, and it was even better, and closer, me edging in to first place on the final strip pay-out by virtue of my newly-acquired four tile casino. It was more coherent than when we played it at GNN, and I think we should give it another go. There are subtle strategies for staying in the game in the face of what seems like a runaway leader, which may have eluded us on the two outings we've given it.
On Friday night, we played Catan for old times sake, and R & H cleaned up, Rachel eventually squeaking the win from Henry, Charlotte and I languishing 3rd and fourth.

Ah, the familiar coastline of Catan. With an off-shore stockpile of cities.

Back on the two-player front, Henry and I had dabbled in a bit of Commands and Colours: Ancients, which felt a wee bit fiddly compared with the ultra-streamlined Manoeuvre, though with a more epic, majestic sweep, and probably a bit more depth. We'd also played a few games of Igloo Pop with the older daughters, and they played a few games of Alhambra and Mr Jack amongst themselves. We also played 6 player Shadow Hunters, though that was a bit unsatisfying - four of the six players won . . .

And in amongst it all, Henry and I found time to take on not one, not two, but three games of Twilight Struggle. We got to it a couple of days in to the holiday; Henry had hankering for a game since their last visit to us in September 2011, when I had just received it in a Maths Trade (we took one look at the rules back then and put it away). Since then I've only played it twice, so we were both eager to explore its intricacies.


In actual fact, we found it to be nowhere near as daunting as its reputation might suggest, especially since, on advice gleaned from Ryan Sturm's most recent How to Play, we all but ignored realignment rolls, further streamlining the learning curve. It is an awesome game, and we found that the game lasted longer, getting to later rounds without an outright winner, the more familiar we got with the cards and strategies. That said, Russia won all three games, though Henry, determined to break the Soviet stranglehold, put up a valiant fight in the last game (and enjoyed getting to prod me in the chest as he played the Kitchen Debates). And it's not stupidly long - all three of our games lasted between two and a half and three hours; though none lasted beyond turn six - an epic struggle that went the full ten rounds could last four, even five hours. In that sense it bucks the general trend, in that the better both players know the game, the longer it will take.

All in all an awesome week of gaming, perfectly intertwined with a very lovely week away, thanks to Henry and Rachel and their delightful girls. Roll on the new season of GNN, my loins are girded!
JB

Thursday, 5 April 2012

Murder Cubed

My dad, Mo, and sister Heather are currently over from the U.S. and last night I managed to engineer Mo away from the Scrabble board and convince Heather and Sally to play another game. I did think about Stone Age, or Tinner's Trail, or Alhambra, but in the end I bottled it and went for Mord Im Arosa, the game that trivializes both death and morality.

For the uninitiated this is a game of listening - putting my half-deaf dad at a disadvantage - for clues (cubes) as they tumble down through the cardboard floors of the Arosa Hotel. Then it's a simple matter of finding the murder victims, and trying to implicate your fellow players whilst keeping your own name in the clear.

In the first game Mo found himself serially on the wrong floors, like a killer scrabbling unsuccessfully for the exit door whilst smothered in butter. While I made abortive attempts to Clear My Name (and remove my clues from the implicatory Investigation Sheet) Sally and Heather kept their names relatively unsullied:

1 Sally
2 Heather
3 Sam
4 Mo

The game only took 15 minutes so everyone was amenable to another go at it before we all collapsed in a wine-induced stupor. This time - though I don't remember the exact scores - it was more even between 2nd/3rd/4th, but I somehow managed to finish with only one clue on the Investigation Sheet - all my clues throwing in their lot together on the uninvestigated first floor.

1 Sam
2 Heather
3 Mo
4 Sally

Nice to squeeze in a couple of games on a non-GNN week (there is poker on Friday, if anyone's tempted) but a shame that no-one took up the mantle of saying "shloppy investigation" in a faux-Swedish accent from me.

I thought that was pretty much the game's main attraction, but apparently not.

Friday, 30 March 2012

All the News You Didn't Know You Didn't Need

Work has been a little slack recently so between filling out applications and cursing perfectly innocent (but employed) third parties, I’ve had time to go back through the blog and assemble a comprehensive list of placings, from the very first GNN on the blog to this week's shenanigans - and here they are, broken up into seasons and unhelpfully resized by Blogger:








If we look at who has won the most games, it’s as follows:

Adam 50
Sam 46
Joe 31
Andrew 16
Quentin 15
Hannah 8
Steve 7
Jonny 4

- No-one else has really played enough to come under scrutiny.

No great surprises there. Obviously though, Adam has played a lot more games than Jonny, Hannah and Steve have, so how does the overall ratio look, in terms of wins to games played? That might be a little more reflective of overall performance:

PlayerGamesWinsWin Ratio %
Adam1295038.8
Quentin441534.1
Sam1434632.2
Hannah30826.7
Joe1243125
Steve34720.6
Jonny30413.3
Andrew1531610.5


Although Adam remains convincingly top, Quentin leapfrogs over me into second, and Hannah jumps over Andrew and Joe into fourth. Andrew drops like a tub of Neopolitan ice cream from a hot-air balloon to bottom, despite impressive wins in the likes of Serenissima and Taj Mahal.

But how to measure one victory against another? In the above table, a win in Poison counts the same as a win in Agricola or Caylus. To paraphrase Ann Robinson, who is this lazily generic summary doing a disservice to?

I went through the individual games and removed victories gained in the short-ish, filler games (Bacchus Banquet, Tsuro, Poison, Pitch Cars, No Thanks, Ave Caesar, Dancing Dice, 6nimmt, High Society, For Sale, Mord Im Arosa) and a couple of the longer games that seem to rely heavily on luck rather than strategy (Robo Rally, I’m the Boss, Roll Through the Ages, Innovations). I left in Citadels, Condottierre, Thunderstone, Blockers, Hey That's My Fish, and Trans America/Europa. Kind of arbitrary, but then I’m the one sitting here wasting my life away, so those are the perks. The results:


PlayerGamesWinsWin Ratio %
Adam973334
Quentin301033.3
Sam1052826.7
Joe902325.6
Hannah22625
Steve25624
Jonny27414.8
Andrew113119.7

(Corrected from last week, when I had only subtracted wins from overall total instead of all-filler-games played) Congratulations to Joe, Steve and Jonny, who all improve their ratio. Quentin's ratio holds steady though, and and it's still very congested in the middle of the table. Mine is the worst affected, as clearly racking up wins in the likes of Poison had given me a false position.

It’s not good reading for Andrew, lodged convincingly at the bottom. But wait a minute – it’s not all about winning, is it? What about coming consistently high-placed, but forever just missing out on first? I’ve broken down the placings into a visual chart-type-thing to show the percentage ratio of final positions for each player, and they make interesting reading (click to view):




Obviously Adam looks the most impressive here, with a lovely 1-2-3 spread and then hardly any finishes outside the top four (bear in mind a few of these games will have only had 3 players, occasionally 2) but Andrew’s healthy spread of second and third placings put his relative lack of victories into perspective. Quentin also looks formidable in this light, but can he do it over 150 games? Over to you Quent!

Thursday, 29 March 2012

Let's Splay!

Tonight was the final night of the season. A rip-roaring affair as the regular four met up in a last desperate attempt to fling themselves across the finish line in first. Me, Adam and Joe arrived on time, with Sam promising to arrive after football (playing, not watching).

We began with a bit of comedy. Rattlesnakes is a game where your pieces are magnets and you have to place them according to the colour shown on a dice, without disturbing the others. If the pieces suddenly join together, or are repelled off the board, you have to pick them up. The first person to successfully place all their pieces wins. And it was great. A bit tense and a bit silly and definitely a great way to warm up for an evening's studious gaming.

fully loaded nest!

Andrew 0
Adam 4
Joe 5

For the first main game, we chose Hansa Teutonica. When we'd played it recently, Sam remarked that it was the kind of game that Adam would be good at. However, not even in our craziest dreams could Joe and I have imagined how quickly Adam would get the hang of it. It was the gaming equivalent of being in a cement mixer with rocks and stones, as Adam quickly increased his number of moves and his number of men available, and before long was picking up points for fun. Meanwhile Joe and I were trying to find somewhere on the board where we wouldn't accidentally give Adam a point. Or two.



By the end, both Joe and I were feeling pretty beaten up, and Adam's margin of victory accurately reflects the dominance he displayed during the game.

Adam 53
Andrew 36
Joe 30

It was still early and so we decided on a new game, Innovation. This card game takes each player through ten stages of civilisation from the early ages (illustrated by sort-of-cave men with bad posture standing beside a henge) to Space colonies. We had barely started when Sam arrived, so Joe went through the rules once more (which I needed) and the four of us began to play.

The rules were a bit complicated, but once you understood the jargon, easy to follow. The cards you play have icons around the edges, allowing you to carry out certain actions. By "splaying" your cards, a player could increase the number of icons on display. The actions allowed you to add cards, take cards from other people or generally mess things about.

Due to the random nature of the game I couldn't plan ahead at all, since I had no idea what would be in my hand until it was actually my go. And I got lucky, since I had lots of crown symbols and I got an action that needed lots of crown symbols. This action was powerful enough that, if I did it a few times, I was soon in a healthy first place and able to end the game.

Andrew 4
Adam 3
Sam 2
Joe 1

I found Innovation to be too random to be much fun, and it felt like a card game version of Robo Rally. And those occasions that I succeeded just felt like stumbling into luck. Pity, since the illustrations are quite nice.

All of which leads us to the final leader boards on the season. Last time, the great big leaderboard took too much time to sort out, so I've streamlined things. First is the Form Table, which Adam takes right at the end, and I scramble into second, pushing Jonny into third. Congrats Adam! You see, the form table is a sprint, not a marathon.







Points
Adam 2 1 2 1 1 7
Andrew1 2 1 2 2 8
Jonny1 1 3 1 3 9
Quentin1 3 1 13 10*
Steve 2 3 1 2 3 11
Sam3 1 4 3 3 14
Joe4 3 3 4 4 18
Hannah2355520
Anja3 5 3 5 5 21
Chris3545522
Paul4455523


Meanwhile, definitely a marathon, not a sprint is the old-style points ratio, which goes to Quentin. It's all about quality, not quantity with this guy and it's the second season in a row that he's won this particular category. And a quick tug of the forelock to Sam for winning most points overall.

The leaderboard...

PlayedPointsRatio
Quentin5255
Sam331534.64
Steve14644.57
Adam27120.54.46
Joe28112.54.02
Andrew331293.91
Jonny11423.82
Anja1343.53.35
Hannah3103.33
Chris382.67
Paul37.52.5


A finally, the Olympic-style leaderboard, which is like a marathon with sprinty bits. Sam is a comfortable winner this season despite Adam's late run of good form.


GoldSilverBronze
Sam12115
Adam1067
Joe849
Andrew3148
Steve362
Jonny306
Quentin302
Anja123
Hannah011
Chris001

And so that's it for another exciting season. It is Easter next week, so its still unsure if there'll be a games night next week, but one week off won't hurt us. Will it?

Not much, anyway.

* the decay rule – people with five results registered, after a while, will find their score go down one point per week if they don't attend for three weeks. It may sound harsh, but it stops the regulars getting resentful. If they attend another evening, all decay points are removed.